Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13
cuomo from erik. james says in connecticut there are two major problems, the deficit and more taxes. both problems are created by one party rule. what are the big issues in your state? join that conversation on facebook by looking for c-span. let us take a look at the balance of power in state. we can see here who controls the governors' seats. 30 republicans states in red, 19 democratic, and one independent in rhode island. but as your what ray has to say on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that i believe here in the state of texas -- our standard of living is what keeps is going. nobody can live on $7.25 hour. our standard of living is so below the economy it should be at $12 per hour. everything is so expensive right now. it should be, at the very least, $12 per hour. host: you are calling to raise the minimum wage? caller: yes, ma'am. if everybody makes at least $12 an hour, this country would boom so fast. here in the state of texas -- i think it is everywhere. the corruption of the governor and the mayor. big corporate donors, big business owners. they
with incentives to take risks and bring ideas from dream to reality. tax credit to help early-stage companies to develop andit's worked in other states, and it's something we can do this session. i will work with the legislature to make it more desirable for small and medium size businesses to hire more people in washington. we must also do a better job commercializing the technologies connecting the dots from the classroom to the laboratory to the marketplace. and no economic strategy would be complete without a transportation plan that facilitates this growth. this session i expect to work with stakeholders that have already committed to a bipartisan plan to build an infrastructure for the next generation. in the next ten years, our population will grow by approximately three quarters of a million people, but we will not be adding one more square inch of dirt. to honestly address our recognize that creativity is just as important as concrete. i want us to turn our innovative spirit towards crafting a transportation package that includes roads, trains, light rail, buses, bike routes and othe
, a trillion dollar tax hike took effect. the senate voted to prevent tax hikes and 90% of americans. and made the lower tax hikes permanent. president obama got less revenue than the speaker offered in the first place. in short, there is no way we were going to get a better deal for the american tax payer. we wanted to keep tax hikes low for everybody. we wanted to cut spending. otherwise every single taxpayer would have paid higher taxes and our economy would have gotten into a nosedive. the decision was simple. if you think a bill needs to pass, you vote for it. many of my colleagues voted the other way. i respect their decision. prudence demands mutual understanding, especially among friends. my colleagues and i saw the same thing. we wanted a smaller, smarter government. we simply differed on the means. that is the difficulty of governing. it should not be a cause for division. our tactics will differ from issue to issue, but our strategy remains the same. in the next four years, opportunity will not come easily. we have to pay our bills and make sure we can pay our bills tomorrow. to do
should simpfie our tax code not for the benefit of washington, d.c. but to get washington, d.c. out of the way. let's get rid of the loopholes paid for by lob yist. it shouldn't be complicated for a taxpayer to fill out his taxes or to live his life in fear of the tax consequences for his or her choices. let the democrats extol the virtues of our an indicated one size fits all factory schools where the child follow it is dollars. meanwhile let us republicans feature the successed of child sentered education solutions, education solutions where the dollars follow the child. [applause] these are but a few examples of the way we must fight the battle or how we must win the argument. one thing we've got to get straight right now washington has spent a generation trying to bribe our citizens and extort our states. as republicans it's time to quit arguing around the edges of this corrupt system. that brings me to my third point which i want to shift gears and speak to changes i believe we must make if we are to win elections. as i ipped kated before i do not believe we need to abandon or
and taxes even more, whether it is cap and trade, regulating our economy and raising the costs for every american, they are feeling emboldened right now. and if conservatives stand together, we can stop that, and stopping bad things that would harm this country, that would harm americans, is a major victory for the next two years. [applause] but the third thing we can do in the short term is we can use leverage points to plaque real progress on the fiscal and economic crisis threatening this country. the fundamental dynamic when you have divided government is that whichever side owns the default is in the stronger position. either party can stop anything. so whoever wins if nothing gets done, wins the negotiation, wins the battle. it's why on fiscal cliff we got such a lousy deal. because if nothing happened, the result was a massive tax increase on er american who pays taxes, and i think president obama was perfectly fine, he was serene to go off that cliff. why? because his substantive agenda, which he doesn't hide from, is to dramatically expand the size and power of government, and t
government workers were given of taxpayer money to your taxes to allow green energy company to great prosperity. that path is a disaster. balancing the government books is not what matters most. government is not the and all and be all. the health of america is not about government at all. balancing the books as a nice goal but that is not our primary objective. our objective is to grow the private sector. need to focus our efforts and ideas to grow the american economy, not the government economy. i will talk about a couple of other points but if you take nothing else away from what i say, understand this -- we must not become the party of austerity. we must not be the party of austerity. we must be the party of growth. we know the government is out of control and the public knows that, too, yet we just lost an election. we cannot afford to fight on our terms. the republican party must become the party of growth, the party for a prosperous future based on economic growth, an opportunity based on every community in this great nation and not based in washington, d.c. we have fall into
the taxes that support government expenditures. they paid premiums through their employers for health coverage. they forgo wage increases that could be much higher if health costs were not growing as fast. they believe are the beneficiaries of the whole two trillion dollars in the end. we are not talking about the blood in the streets. people fighting over dwindling -- over a dwindling pie. i would posit that only in health care what the growth from two 0.9 trillion dollars in 2013 to 5.1 trillion dollars in 2023 would be referred to as a shrinking pie. there will be plenty of resources flowing into the health-care system, just not quite as much as would be flowing if nothing was done. we are talking now to give you some sense of the magnitude of this. we are talking about the .rojected health policy twee if you say two trillion dollars in that growth, you would be reducing health spending to only 40 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. you would be cutting the growth in health spending from an estimated 90% under current policy to only 75% over the next two -- over the next 10 ye
-class families, of which could then go to educating their kids or building up their savings. tax reform, that is also important for conservatives and republicans. host: a question from our viewer -- guest: tom cotten, the congressman from arkansas, a friend of mine. he went to harvard, which i went to, so i'm biased. he went to harvard law school, which i don't hold against him. he volunteered for the army in 2004, served as an officer in iraq and afghanistan, work for is that business a while, had a close primary against an aggressive womaperson. but he won. there he is, a first term congressman in the house. he will be able to weigh in on the chuck hagel nomination. he has spoken eloquently on that. he is a real rising star in the house. he is already respected by his peers. he was involved with the speaker, paul ryan, and others, in trying to devise a tactical maneuver to get the debt ceiling moved back and to able to deal with sequester. he will have a tough decision in a few months. there's pressure on him in arkansas to run for senate in 2014 against price yoryor, a vulnerable dem
of comments last week about the issue of a carbon tax. that is something that keeps coming up on capitol hill that perhaps a legislative solution to the climate change problem would help. explain what a carbon tax is. guest: a carbon tax is really the ultimate climate policy. it is what economists and the environmentalists say would be the policy that would make a fundamental change in the market and in the environment. it would put a price on carbon pollution. carbon pollution is the main source -- or green as gases -- are the main cause of climate change -- global warming. there are coal-fired power plants that are allowed to emit carbon pollution and they do not pay. the idea is that if carbon polluters were to have to start paying, it raises the price of fossil fuel and raise the price of these polluting sources of energy and that will fundamentally drive the market toward cleaner, low pollution energies. it is also politically controversial. pricing carbon pollution means raising the price of electricity, gasoline, all the funds and always which we drive our economy. i think it would be
that in our tax code. our tax code is so complicated because there are so many giveaways to the special interest groups or the well-connected that don't privilege americans that work hard and try to put food on the table. >> i have often wondered and explored this if people have an appetite for limited government? americans in general, the government keeps getting bigger. we struggle to obtain the a slower right of growth, which is a great vibtry in a way it is. have you found an appetite for limited government? or limited government for others and not for themselves? >> i believe so. i said often times in the campaign trail that the constitution is very popular and big government is not popular. that is where we should anchor our program and policies. you saw this in the president's speech on monday even though it was a very liberal speech. he didn't call for big government. >> the inaugural address? >> yeah, the inaugural address. that's because he knows what bill clinton knew in 1996, that big government is over. so i do think -- >> the era is over. >> yeah. again, if political leade
limits. your governors, senators, mayors, city council, dog catcher, tax collector. are you in favor of term limits, yes or no? here are the numbers. host: you can also reach out to us by social media. host: i want to show you some of the numbers from the recently released gallup poll. they ask americans support for establishing term limits for federal lawmakers. suppose on election day you could vote for key issues as well as candidates. or againstote for the number of terms congress and senate can serve? nationally among adults those voting for term limits are in the 75% range. those who say they would vote against term limits, 21%. those who had no opinion, 5%. breaking it down among political parties, republicans, those voting for, who say they would vote for term limits, 82% of republicans questioned in this gallup poll, 82% say they would vote for term limits. 15% say they would vote against. 3% say they have no opinion. independence, 79% say they would vote for term limits. 17% say they would vote against. 4% say they have no opinion. and among democrats, 65% say that they wou
the tax credit that exists for consumers. it is important to keep a variety of options available for consumers. if we are going to meet the 2025 standards of 52.5 miles per gallon, it is going to take not just more hybrid vehicles, but it will also take continued improvement in the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, and companies are focused on that. when you walk around the auto show, they will have exhibits that show some of the things they're doing that make the traditional gasoline-powered engine even more efficient and increase gas mileage. host: next call from matt blunt, president of the american automotive policy council -- dug in syracuse, new york. caller: good morning. mr. blunt, i wonder if you could explain to the american taxpayer and consumer why the taxpayer bailout should not be totally paid back by the government, to the government, by the big three auto makers. guest: you know, the government has an ownership stake in general motors today. they have worked with the government, a general motors and the government have come to an agreement about the re
of no income tax and the morgans and mellons and carnegie and rockefellers. we created more wealth for everyone. so we can do this recognizing that the energy market is a $6 trillion market compared to one with what, four billion users going up to nine billion over the course of the next 20, 30 years. this is a place for us to recognize what other countries are doing and what our states that are growing are doing, which is there is an extraordinary amount of opportunity in modernizing america's energy grid. we don't even have a grid in america. we have a big open gap in the circle of america. east coast grid, west coast grid and texas grid and a line from chicago over to the dakotas. we can't sell energy from minnesota to arizona or arizona to massachusetts or to the coal states. it doesn't make sense and can't be a modern country if we don't fix that infrastructure. i would respectfully say to you that climate change is not something to be feared in response to -- the steps to respond to -- it's to be feared if we don't. 3,500 communities in our nation last year broke records for heat. we had
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13